K, Padhi D. (1993). A Study of Creative Potential of Socially Deprived and Economically Backward High School Students. Unpublished. Ph.D., Education. Kurukshetra University, Haryana.
The objectives of the study were: (1) To study language, scientific and general creative potential of normal, socially deprived and economically backward high school students. (2) To study the main and interactional effects of different groups (normal, socially deprived and economically backward); residence (rural and urban); and sex (male and female) on language, scientific and general creativity of high school students. (3) To study the main and interactional effects of different groups, residence and sex on fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration dimensions of language creativity. (4) To study the main and interactional effects of different groups, residence and sex on fluency, flexibility and originality dimensions of scientific creativity. (5) To study the main and interactional effects of different groups, residence and sex on number and uniqueness dimensions of general creativity. (6) To study the relationship of socio-economic status of normal, socially deprived, economically backward and total sample of high school students with language, scientific and general creativity and their various dimensions. (7) To study the inter-correlations among language, scientific and general creative potential of normal, socially deprived, economically backward and total sample of high school students. (8) To study the multiple-correlations among language, scientific and general creativity for normal, socially deprived, economically backward and total sample of high school students. (9) To study the individual and joint contributions of language, scientific and general creative potential to variances in each other for normal, socially deprived, economically backward and total sample of high school students.
Students studying in class X in the secondary schools of Mayurbhanj district of Orissa State were selected as sample for the present study. A sample of 200 socially deprived and 200 economically backward students were selected from 14 schools of this district by using Stratified Random Sampling technique. For comparing the creative potential of these groups of students, a sample of 200 normal students was selected randomly from the same institutions from where socially deprived and economically backward students had been taken.
Data were collected with the help of following tools: (1) Socio-economic Status Scale, (2) Test of Language Creativity (these were developed and standardized by researcher) (3) Test of Scientific Creativity by Gupta and (4) Test of General Creativity by Wallach and Kogan. According to the objectives of the present study, the researcher analyzed three independent variables; viz., groups, residence and sex in relation to the language, scientific and general creativity scores of high school students. Each of three independent variables had the following levels - Groups – Normal, Socially-deprived and Economically-backward students, Residence – Rural and Urban & Sex – Male and Female.
The present study was multi-dimensional in nature, where different statistical treatments were applied for different objectives.
Thus, 3 X 2 X 2 Factorial Design ANOVA was employed to analyze the data. In the first case, group differences in creative potential of socially-deprived and economically backward high-school students were analyzed. And in the second case, the relationship aspect of creative potential was analyzed with the help of correlation technique.
The findings of the study were: (1) Groups as a single main variable showed significant differences on language and scientific creativity of the students. The mean scores showed that normal students had more creative potential in language and scientific fields than socially - deprived and economically backward students. Again, in case of language creativity, economically backward students were more creative than socially deprived students; whereas in case of scientific creativity, socially - deprived students were more creative than economically backward students. Group as a single main variable did not show any significant difference on general creativity of the students. (2) Residence as a single main variable showed no significant difference on language, scientific and general creativity. Thus, urban and rural high school students did not differ in creative potential in these fields. (3) Sex as a single main variable showed significant difference on scientific creativity of the students. Mean scores showed that male students had more creative potential in this field than the female students. But, in case of language and general creativity, no significant difference was found between male and female high school students. (4a) The two factor interactional effects of group x residence and residence x sex of students on scientific creativity were significant. Normal students belonging to urban areas had highest mean scientific creativity scores while economically backward students belonging to urban areas had the least mean scores in this field. Further, male urban students had highest mean scores and female rural students had least mean scores in scientific creativity. (4b) The two factor interactional effect of group x sex of students on language creativity is significant. Female students belonging to normal group had highest mean language creativity scores, while female socially deprived students had the least language creative potential. (4c) The triple interactional effect of group x residence x sex on language, scientific and general creativity was not significant. (5a) Group as a single main variable showed significant differences on all the dimensions of language and scientific creativity of the students. The mean scores show that- (i) Normal students had more fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration in the fields of language and science than the socially-deprived and economically-backward students; (ii) Economically-backward students had more fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration in language than socially-deprived students; (iii) Socially-deprived students had more fluency in science than economically backward students. (5b) In case of general creativity, it was found that (i) Normal students had more uniqueness (originality) than socially deprived and economically backward students; (ii) Economically backward students were having more uniqueness than socially deprived students and (iii) Economically backward students were also having more scores on number (fluency) dimension than socially deprived and normal students. However, no significant differences were found between socially - deprived and normal students on number dimension of general creativity. (6) Residence as a single main variable showed no significant difference on all the dimensions of language, scientific and general creativity. Thus, urban and rural high school students had same creative potential on different dimensions of language, scientific and general creativity. (7) Sex as a single main variable showed significant difference in all the dimensions of scientific creativity. Mean scores showed that male students had more fluency, flexibility and originality than female students in the field of sciences. However, in case of different dimensions of language and general creativity, no significant differences between male and female students were found out. (8a) The two factor intearcitonal effect of group x residence of students was significant in following cases- (i) On all the dimensions of scientific creativity, Normal students belonging to urban areas had highest mean scores in fluency, flexibility and originality dimensions of scientific creativity whereas economically backward belonging to urban areas had least mean scores on all these three dimensions of scientific creativity. (ii) On elaboration dimensions of language creativity, Normal students belonging to rural areas had highest mean scores, while socially deprived students from urban areas had the least mean scores on elaboration dimension of language creativity. (iii) On number of general creativity, economically backward students belonging to rural areas had highest mean scores, while normal students from rural areas had least mean scores on number dimensions of general creativity. However, no interactional effects of group x residence of the students were found out on fluency, flexibility and originality dimensions of language creativity and uniqueness dimensions of general creativity. (b) The two factor interactional effect of residence x sex of the students was significant in following cases- (i) On fluency and elaboration dimensions of language creativity, male students belonging to urban areas had highest mean scores on both fluency and elaboration dimensions. While male students from rural areas had least mean scores on fluency, male students from rural areas had least mean scores on elaboration in language creativity. (ii) On fluency and flexibility dimensions of scientific creativity, male students belonging to urban areas had highest mean scores, while female students from rural areas had least mean scores on both these dimensions. (iii) On uniqueness dimensions of general creativity, male students belonging to rural areas had highest mean scores, while female students from rural areas had least mean scores on uniqueness dimensions of general creativity. However, no interactional effects of residence x sex of the students were found out on flexibility and originality dimensions of language creativity; originality dimension of scientific creativity and number dimensions of general creativity. (c) The two factor interactional effect of group x sex of the students on all the dimensions of language, scientific and general creativity was not significant. (d) The triple interactional effects of group x residence x sex of the students on fluency and flexibility dimensions of language creativity were significant. Normal female students belonging to urban areas had highest mean scores, while socially deprived female students from urban areas had the least mean scores on both these dimensions. However, no significant interactional effect of groups x residence x sex of the students was found on originality and elaboration dimension of language creativity and all the dimensions of scientific and general creativity. (9) Socio-economic status of normal socially deprived, economically-backward, and total sample of high school students was positively and significantly related with language creativity and its various dimensions – fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration. (10) Socio-economic status of normal, social-deprived, economically backward and total sample of high school students was positively and significantly related with scientific creativity and its various dimensions – fluency, flexibility and originality. (11) Socio-economic status of normal, socially - deprived, economically backward and total sample of high school students was positively and significantly related with general creativity and various dimensions – number and uniqueness. (12) The inter-correlation coefficients among language creativity, scientific creativity and general creativity were strongly and positively related to each other in the case of various group viz., total sample, normal, socially deprived and economically backward high school students. (13) Scientific creativity and general creativity together had a positive and significant multiple correlations with the language creativity in the case of total sample, normal, socially-deprived and economically backward high school students. (14a) 47.82%, 31.66%, 31.29% and 20.53% of variances in language creativity of total sample, normal, socially - deprived, and economically backward students respectively were due to the variances in their scientific and general creativity. (14b) Further, regarding individual contributions, 34.32%, 11.52%, 18.81% and 18.85% of variances in language creativity of total sample, normal, socially-deprived and economically backward students were due to the variances in their scientific creativity, whereas 13.50%, 20.14% and 11.98% of variance in language creativity of total sample, normal, socially deprived and economically backward students respectively were due to the variance in their general creativity. (16) Language creativity and general creativity together had a positive and significant multiple correlation with scientific creativity in the cases of total sample, normal, socially - deprived and economically backward high school students. (16a) 50.41%, 47.92%, 47.38% and 27.84% of variances in scientific creativity of total sample, normal, socially-deprived and economically backward students respectively were due to the variance in their language and general creativity. (16b) Further, regarding individual contributions, 16.09%, 26.40% 28.57% and 9.29% of variances in scientific creativity of total sample, normal, socially-deprived and economically backward students respectively were due to the variance in their general creativity, whereas 34.32%, 11.52% 18.81% and 18.55% of variances in scientific creativity of total sample, normal, socially-deprived and economically-backward students respectively were due to the variances in their language creativity. (17) Language creativity and scientific creativity together had a positive and significant multiple-correlation with general creativity in the cases of total sample, normal, socially-deprived and economically-backward high school students. (18a) 29.65%, 56.54% and 21.27% of variance in general creativity of total sample, normal, socially deprived and economically backward students were due to the variances in their language and scientific creativity. (18b) Further, regarding individual contributions, 16.09%, 20.14%, 12.48% and 11.98% of variances in general creativity of total sample, normal, socially deprived and economically backward students respectively were due to the variances in their language in general creativity of total sample, normal, socially deprived and economically backwards students respectively were due to the variance in their scientific creativity.
Keyword(s): Creative Potential, Economically Backward, Scially Deprived, High School , Crativity